Why 24/192 is a bad idea?

[Soundproof]

I think I'll start one called "When does hi-res not really matter," and the answer is when a bunch of Audiophiles have bought upsampled 16/44.1 from HD Tracks and didn't notice until they read it on the internet.

Tim

Will be a short thread, that's already happened. Linn acted as reseller for a large library of music which was supposed to be high-res, but which was sold to customers for a long period in Redbook. The providers didn't notice, Linn didn't notice, the artists behind the music didn't notice (you'd think they would give their efforts a listen), and customers in large numbers didn't notice.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/look-what-linn-sold-24-96-a-5542/

 

[Bruce B]

I think I'll start one called "When does hi-res not really matter," and the answer is when a bunch of Audiophiles have bought upsampled 16/44.1 from HD Tracks and didn't notice until they read it on the internet.

Tim

Or when a mastering engineer "assumed" that SACD automatically meant hi-rez and audiophiles started listening and determining what sounded good with their eyes!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Will be a short thread, that's already happened. Linn acted as reseller for a large library of music which was supposed to be high-res, but which was sold to customers for a long period in Redbook. The providers didn't notice, Linn didn't notice, the artists behind the music didn't notice (you'd think they would give their efforts a listen), and customers in large numbers didn't notice.

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/look-what-linn-sold-24-96-a-5542/

I remember it well. Someone started running graphs on the things. You could see them drop right off at 22khz. The outrage was....palpable...but nobody had noticed until the charts showed up.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

I remember it well. Someone started running graphs on the things. You could see them drop right off at 22khz. The outrage was....palpable...but nobody had noticed until the charts showed up.

Tim

How many people had the opportunity to compare side-by-side the redbook file and the true high-res file? If I bought a single file, I may well attribute its sound quality to other factors than merely the sampling rate, etc.

Lee

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How many people had the opportunity to compare side-by-side the redbook file and the true high-res file?

Very few, I suspect. Well a bunch of them did in the Meyer and Moran study, but I digress...

Tim

 

[Soundproof]

How many people had the opportunity to compare side-by-side the redbook file and the true high-res file? If I bought a single file, I may well attribute its sound quality to other factors than merely the sampling rate, etc.

Lee

Shouldn't really be relevant, I would think. But the original artists, the producing company and Linn did have the opportunity to do so. The explanation for the strange error was that the library was batch processed in Redbook as it was saved to Linn's servers.


If there was a significant difference between the Redbook and High-Res versions, I would think that the error should have been caught internally - or that us audiophiles would swiftly have noted the resultant general insufficientness of Redbook to well trained 55 years old ears.

To Linn's credit, they did swiftly try to sort things out, but came up against the "there is no there there" paradox of high-res files pulled from material with no high-res production line. Linn does have a high-res line themselves, and maybe they just went a favor too far in this instance, on behalf of an outside supplier of material.

 

[RBFC]

When we don't have a reference for what a certain recording "should' sound like, I can't see how we could be expected to identify digital encoding artifacts when basic mastering properties, etc. have so much greater impact. I'm willing to bet that Linn, etc. were just too busy getting product on the "shelves" to take the time to examine said product or they just took someone's word on things. Unfortunate.

Lee

 

[NorthStar]

Shouldn't really be relevant, I would think. But the original artists, the producing company and Linn did have the opportunity to do so. The explanation for the strange error was that the library was batch processed in Redbook as it was saved to Linn's servers.


If there was a significant difference between the Redbook and High-Res versions, I would think that the error should have been caught internally - or that us audiophiles would swiftly have noted the resultant general insufficientness of Redbook to well trained 55 years old ears.

To Linn's credit, they did swiftly try to sort things out, but came up against the "there is no there there" paradox of high-res files pulled from material with no high-res production line. Linn does have a high-res line themselves, and maybe they just went a favor too far in this instance, on behalf of an outside supplier of material.

Talkin' 'bout LINN; did you know that you cannot duplicate their CD recordings?
I just tried again earlier, and they are the only CD recordings (LINN Records label) that my machines won't record!

Why is that? ..I thought they were standard PCM 16-bit/44.1kHz (with HDCD encoding).

 

[xiphmont]

Talkin' 'bout LINN; did you know that you cannot duplicate their CD recordings?
I just tried again earlier, and they are the only CD recordings (LINN Records label) that my machines won't record!

Why is that? ..I thought they were standard PCM 16-bit/44.1kHz (with HDCD encoding).

Have a look on it with a Linux box and CDParanoia... see what it says. Sometimes discs these days have little hooks designed ask the major OSes to curtail the users' rights.

 

[rbbert]

Talkin' 'bout LINN; did you know that you cannot duplicate their CD recordings?
I just tried again earlier, and they are the only CD recordings (LINN Records label) that my machines won't record!

Why is that? ..I thought they were standard PCM 16-bit/44.1kHz (with HDCD encoding).

Try ripping them on a Mac.

 

[NorthStar]

1. There is a very clear message (right on the discs) that it is Prohibited to hire or rent, or if you try unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting of this CD recording.

2. Not only that, but the LINN CDs sound awful in any CD players except the LINN ones!
And it says too! ...Right on the disc itself! And on the back of the CD jewel box! And also on the inside booklet! ...Not that they sound bad, but that they sound even better in LINN CD players.

3. I don't have a Mac. ...Only PCs and stand alone CD recorders.

* By the way, I have several CDs copyright protected; they won't record digitally in my standalone CD recorders, but they will in my PCs (most of them, except the LINN ones).

Anyway, I don't truly care, but I was simply curious as we were talking LINN products here.
...And also high resolution audio recordings.

 

[Bruce B]

1. There is a very clear message (right on the discs) that it is Prohibited to hire or rent, or if you try unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting of this CD recording.
.

This one rips fine and sounds great in my PD machine.

 

[NorthStar]

Is your PD machine without copy protection embedding Bruce? ...I forgot what's called.

 

[Bruce B]

Is your PD machine without copy protection embedding Bruce? ...I forgot what's called.

Rips fine in my computer. Plays fine on the MPS-5

 

[NorthStar]

Rips fine in my computer. Plays fine on the MPS-5

SCMS: Serial Copy Management System.
& CSS: Content Scramble System.

* On most standalone CD recorders, where only one digital copy can be made, and not a digital copy of a copy.
With PCs it's different, but some CDs and some PCs and some programs are not created all equal ...

Anyway, only LINN CDs (circa 2000), aren't compatible with my programs and equipment.
But I ain't sweating it, not for a sec! :b ...And that $20,000 CD player from LINN; well, they can keep it! ...But I did listen to it before.